Case law

Union Pacific Railroad Company v. The United States

401 F.2d 778 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 18, 1968

In the case of Liquid Carbonic Corp. v. … See Brown Shoe Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 339 U.S. 583 , 70 S.Ct. 820 , 94 L.Ed. 1081 (1950) ; Reynolds Spring Co. v.

Dove

206 Ct. Cl. 862 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 14, 1975

In 1973 a Physical Evaluation Board found that plaintiff was unfit for military duty and recommended retirement with a 50% disability rating; this decision was reviewed by the Air Force Personnel Board which reversed the … Lipp v. United States, 373 U.S. 932 (1963), and Montilla v. United States, 198 Ct. Cl. 48, 57 , 457 F. 2d 978, 982-83 (1972).

Aulston v. United States

11 Cl. Ct. 58 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 30, 1986

Thus, review of the board’s decision would be proper only in a court with general federal question jurisdiction, i.e., the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1982); Califano v. … In Rowe v.

Page v. United States

56 Ct. Cl. 176 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 4, 1921

The Secretary appointed a board of engineers to prescribe rules for the classification of material. The board consisted of three engineers connected with the work. … This provision of the contract is identical with the provision of the contract passed upon by this court in the case of Brinck v. United States, 53 C. C. 170, 176.

Kennedy v. United States

5 Cl. Ct. 792 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 31, 1984

Plaintiff William V. … No appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board is provided.

Libby v. United States

81 F. Supp. 722 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 3, 1948

The Commanding Officer at Morrison Field transmitted the Board’s Report to the War Department with the statement that he did not concur in the findings or recommendations of the Board, and on July 20, 1944, a Board of Officers … The criteria for granting relief under the statute involved is stated by the court in its opinion in the case of Boggs v.

LaMarche v. United States

150 Ct. Cl. 631 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 15, 1960

See Washington v. United States, 137 Ct. Cl. 344, petition for cert. dismissed, 355 U.S. 801 . … Furthermore, the plaintiff did request and receive a hearing before an agency hearing board, which hearing the plaintiff’s representative characterized as fair and impartial.

Greene v. United States

94 F. Supp. 666 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 9, 1951

This can only be done by an immigration inspector, or, in certain cases, by a Board of Special Inquiry. … This we do not think is at variance with what we said in O'Rourke v. United States, 109 C. Cls. 33, 40 , et seq., iandl Taylor v. United States, 114 C. Cls. 59, 63 , et seq.

Al Johnson Construction Co. v. United States

19 Cl. Ct. 732 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 21, 1990

Johnson Massman places greatest reliance on two Board of Contract Appeals decisions. … In Todd Building Co. v.

Thacher v. United States

37 Ct. Cl. 13 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 2, 1901

(S torer v. Gray, 2 Mass. R., 565 .) The question was whether an average or total loss was due, and the amount due. … Brien v. Williamson, 7 How. (Miss.), 14. Such isolated cases, however, only prove the possibility of their presentation. The proceeding in the Massachusetts court majr not have been for the purpose of deceiving anyone.

Cape Fox Corp. v. United States

4 Cl. Ct. 223 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 27, 1983

The modification was thought to reduce the contract sale to 28.5 million board feet; subsequent calculations revealed that the volume of the sale was approximately 27.7 million board feet. … A total of about 4 million additional board feet had been cut and bucked and about 3 million board feet was then in rafts.

International Telephone & Telegraph Corp. v. United States

608 F.2d 462 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 17, 1979

Gould Coupler Co. v. Commissioner, supra note 15, 5 B.T.A. at 514; Farmers Deposit Nat'l Bank v. Commissioner, supra note 22; Owensboro Conserve Co. v. Commissioner, supra note 22. … American Standard, Inc. v. United States, supra note 14. Don E. Williams Co. v. Commissioner, 429 U.S. 569, 579 (1977), aff’g 527 F.2d 649 (7th Cir. 1975); Solomon v.

In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct

8 Cl. Ct. 523 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 9, 1985

Chief Judge .Browning of the Ninth Circuit addressed this issue in dismissing a complaint charging bias by a judge in a single case: The procedures complainant invokes are designed to provide an administrative remedy for … Maier v. Orr, 758 F.2d 1578, 1583 (Fed.Cir.1985). * In any case, there are established procedures for putting a judge’s status in issue and requesting that he disqualify himself. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 , 455; RUSCC 63(c).

Laburnum Construction Corporation v. The United States

325 F.2d 451 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 13, 1963

The claim was denied, and plaintiff appealed to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. … At oral argument, defendant for the first time asserted that the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals misconstrued its jurisdiction, and that under the authority of United States v.

Cabrera v. United States

10 Cl. Ct. 219 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 15, 1986

Roberto Cabrera-Alvarez on October 27, 1984 by the United States Customs Service after marijuana was found on board in violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1595 (a) (1982) and 49 U.S.C. § 781 (1982). … . § 781 (1982), after marijuana was discovered on board.

Oak Worsted Mills v. United States

36 F.2d 529 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 2, 1929

For the reasons above stated, we concur in the view taken upon this question by the Board of Tax Appeals and by the Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Florsheim Bros. Dry Goods Co. v. … A.) 22 F.(2d) 367 ; Campbell v. Holt, 115 U. S. 620 , 6 S. Ct. 209 , 29 L. Ed. 483 ; Railroad Co. v. Alabama, 101 U. S. 832 , 25 L. Ed. 973 ; Beers v. Arkansas, 20 How. 527 , 15 L. Ed. 991 ; West Side Co. v.

Dynamics Corporation of America (Formerly Claude Neon, Inc.) v. The United States

449 F.2d 402 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 15, 1971

A special meeting of the board of directors of Dynamics was held in New York City on November 7, 1958, with the *407 entire board present. … Ludwig Baumann & Co. v. Marcelle, 203 F.2d 459 (2d Cir., 1953); Federation Bank & Trust Co. v.

Merson

157 Ct. Cl. 941 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 13, 1962

Military pay; retired pay (disability); arbitrary action of correction board; limitation of actions. — This case came before the court on defendant’s motion for summary judgment. … Upon consideration thereof, together with the opposition thereto and oral argument of counsel, the court, on April 13, 1962, concluded, on the basis of Lipp v. United States, 157 Ct.

Hannevig v. United States

84 F. Supp. 743 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 11, 1949

On August 3, 1917, the United States, by and through its authorized agencies, the United States Shipping Board and the United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation, requisitioned and took over said ship construction … Santovincenzo v. Egan, 284 U.S. 30, 40 , 52 S.Ct. 81 , 76 L.Ed. 151 ; Frelinghuysen v. Key, 110 U.S. 63 , 3 S.Ct. 462 , 28 L.Ed. 71 ; Mcade v. United States, 9 Wall. 691 , 19 L.Ed. 687 ; United States v.

McAlister v. United States

231 Ct. Cl. 785 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 9, 1982

The Appeals Review Board fully considered and rejected this contention. … Wathen v. United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 342, 351 , 527 F.2d 1191, 1197 (1975), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 821 (1976). We cannot conclude that in discharging the plaintiff the agency violated those standards.